Cancer testis antigen and interleukin expression correlates with survival in small bowel neuroendocrine tumors

View full abstracthttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/leading-edge/1042/thumbnail.jp

The significance of a nineteenth century definition in the era of genomics: linitis plastica

Abstract Background Linitis plastica due to gastric adenocarcinoma is a condition with a long history, but still lacks a standardized definition and is commonly confused with Borrmann type IV, Lauren diffuse, and signet-cell type gastric cancer. The absence of a clear definition is a problem when investigating its biological characteristics and role as a possible independent factor for prognosis. Nevertheless, the biological behavior for linitis plastica, which is unique, may be valuable in risk stratification and have implications for treatment. A definition of linitis plastica based on molecular or genomic criteria could represent a useful starting point for investigating new targeted therapies. Main body This literature review of linitis plastica will focus on the current classifications for gastric cancer, illustrating how the concept of linitis plastica relates to them in most cases and identifying a clear and reproducible definition. Moreover, the review will highlight the diagnostic challenges associated with linitis plastica, its prognostic implications, and the therapeutic options available. Future perspectives for its management are also addressed. Conclusion Linitis plastica is a carcinoma with a scirrhous stroma, involving the submucosal and muscular layers of the stomach even in the absence of mucosal alteration. In most cases, the primary cancer cells are signet-ring cells or scattered cells in the context of a poorly differentiated carcinoma. Diagnosis is challenging. Staging should be thorough, including diagnostic laparoscopy in all cases due to the high incidence of peritoneal involvement. The prognostic significance of linitis plastica is still controversial. Curative-intent surgery, when feasible, should be performed, with a multimodality treatment approach. Cancer-stroma interactions are important features of this disease, and represent attaining potential target for future therapies. Future pathologic assessments of gastric cancer should report the stromal reaction in order to allow better characterization of the tumor

Evolution of gastric surgery techniques and outcomes

Abstract Surgical management of gastric cancer improves survival. However, for some time, surgeons have had diverse opinions about the extent of gastrectomy. Researchers have conducted many clinical studies, making slow but steady progress in determining the optimal surgical approach. The extent of lymph node dissection has been one of the major issues in surgery for gastric cancer. Many trials demonstrated that D2 dissection resulted in greater morbidity and mortality than D1 dissection. However, long-term outcomes demonstrated that D2 dissection resulted in longer survival than D1 dissection. In 2004, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group reported a pivotal trial which was performed to determine whether para-aortic lymph node dissection combined with D2 dissection was superior to D2 dissection alone and found no benefit of the additional surgery. Gastrectomy with pancreatectomy, splenectomy, and bursectomy was initially recommended as part of the D2 dissection. Now, pancreas-preserving total gastrectomy with D2 dissection is standard, and ongoing trials are addressing the role of splenectomy. Furthermore, the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy are well established. Survival and quality of life are increasingly recognized as the most important endpoints. In this review, we present perspectives on surgical techniques and important trials of these techniques in gastric cancer patients

Treatment Patterns for Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in the United States

Despite the increasing incidence of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJA), the optimal treatment strategy for the disease remains unknown. The objective of this study was to describe treatment patterns for GEJA in the United States. The National Cancer Database was searched to identify all patients who underwent resection of the lower esophagus, abdominal esophagus, and/or gastric cardia for GEJA between 2006 and 2016. Patients were grouped by clinical disease stage: early localized (L; T1-2N0), locally advanced (LA; T3-4N0), regional (R; T1-2N+), or regionally advanced (RA; T3-4N+). The search identified 28,852 GEJA patients. The dominant age range was 60–69 years (39%). Most patients were men (85%), and most were white (92%). Most L patients (69%) underwent upfront surgery, whereas most LA, R, and RA patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT; 86%, 80%, and 90%, respectively). Among patients who received NAT, 85% received chemoradiotherapy. Adjuvant therapy was relatively uncommon across all groups (15–20%). In the LA, R, and RA groups, overall survival was greater in patients who received NAT compared to upfront surgery (p < 0.001). With the exception of patients with early localized node-negative disease, most GEJA patients receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy despite the lack of prospective trials reporting survival benefit over chemotherapy alone

Feasibility and value of genomic profiling in cancer of unknown primary: real-world evidence from prospective profiling study.

Real-world evidence regarding the value of integrating genomic profiling (GP) in managing cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is limited. We assessed this clinical utility using a prospective trial of 158 patients with CUP (October 2016-September 2019) who underwent GP using next-generation sequencing designed to identify genomic alterations (GAs). Only 61 (38.6%) patients had sufficient tissue for successful profiling. GAs were seen in 55 (90.2%) patients of which GAs with US Food and Drug Administration-approved genomically matched therapy were seen in 25 (40.9%) patients. A change in therapy was recommended and implemented (primary endpoint of the study) in 16 (10.1%) and 4 (2.5%) patients of the entire study cohort, respectively. The most common reason for inability to implement the profiling-guided therapy was worsening of performance status (56.3%). Integrating GP in management of CUP is feasible but challenging because of paucity of tissue and aggressive natural history of the disease and requires innovative precision strategies